|
Linedance posted:to add a fourth perspective, airline maintenance and pilots rule, military loving drools. Just the serfs. 
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
Linedance posted:to add a fourth perspective, airline maintenance and pilots rule, military loving drools. I'm sure airline maintenance would be bad if they were flying planes from the 60s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Don't know if I've ever posted this before, but have you ever wondered what would happen if an F-104 and a MiG-21 hosed? Now you know! Bonus:  Apologies for poor quality of scans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Here, have a story of a P-3 suffering quadruple engine failure (story is last one on page); http://www.vpnavy.org/vp47_mishap.html holy loving goddamn poo poo quote:The rescue was uneventful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
brains posted:!!! Expecting a blow by blow of being winched into helicopters?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
i just like his implication that everything becomes uneventful after surviving that. seriously, though, only 9 control cables not cut and they were literally the barest minimum flight surfaces required to dead stick it into the water. that's pretty goddamn incredible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Linedance posted:military loving drools. Both figuratively and in many cases, literally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
That's why I'm glad I do commercial airline maintenance as opposed to my AF maintenance days its just so much easier to do work when can Mel most pilot write ups and move on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Maybe I was just lucky but in all the squadrons I've been in the relationship was really good between maintenance and aircrew. Course I am Navy and we are all pretty chill bros (if you are a carrier aviator Seriously, I'm really surprised at some of these stories. I was a Viking mechanic for 9 years and also spent a little bit of time on H-60s, and I can't think of a single time where anyone was vying for power over the condition of an aircraft. If we told the crew it was down, it was down. If the crew told us it was broken, it was broken (even if it turned out to be operator error  ). Sometimes one of us was wrong, but nobody really ever got into pissing matches over it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Greataval posted:That's why I'm glad I do commercial airline maintenance as opposed to my AF maintenance days its just so much easier to do work when can Mel most pilot write ups and move on. Cabin crew the other week: "This megaphone isn't working, the light is flashing!". Next to the LED in question, there is a (not particularly) little label that says "flashing light = battery is good". And yet it somehow took me, the storeman, querying the engineers as to what was wrong with it for two licensed aircraft engineers to notice that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Brovine posted:Cabin crew the other week: "This megaphone isn't working, the light is flashing!". I had a first officer one night that couldn't figure out how to open the L1 door on the MD-11 they were about to take to another continent. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Not sure if you guys heard, but in a fit of lunacy the PM of Australia decided to spend some 24 billion bucks on F-35s (half maintenance, half for planes). Some of the hilarious quotes: Defence Minister David Johnston is an unabashed fan of the F-35, predicting it will dominate the skies for at least 10-15 years. "This aircraft is peerless, it has no identifiable rival in the air at the moment," he said. But, it's not even in service...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Not sure if you guys heard, but in a fit of lunacy the PM of Australia decided to spend some 24 billion bucks on F-35s (half maintenance, half for planes). "Any identifiable rival that isn't already in service with the USAF."
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
The main threats to Australia are sharks, the lack of an ozone layer and wildfires. One on one the F-35 is a match for any of those!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
priznat posted:The main threats to Australia are sharks, the lack of an ozone layer and wildfires. F-35 water bomber. Do it, Lockheed, you know you want to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:F-35 water bomber. Do it, Lockheed, you know you want to. "Fire won't know what hit it!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Make it F-35B based, that way it can hover over lakes to take on water. Unless... is there a way to put out fire with lasers? Someone get Grover on this, stat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
What does Australia know about good aircraft? They used the F-111 and liked it! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:"Any identifiable rival that isn't already in service with the USAF." Uhm, has he heard about the F-22? You know, the air superiority fighter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Uhm, has he heard about the F-22? You know, the air superiority fighter? You see since they're both stealth aircraft neither can shoot the other down!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
I thought they can't shoot each other down because the chances of at least one of them being grounded at any given point are huge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
[insert joke about F-35 bombing refugees here]
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:[insert joke about F-35 bombing refugees here] [insert joke about F-35s being too unreliable to keep refugees from getting into country]
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
The US refused to sell the F-22 to Australia, India and Japan. I don't understand why we didn't ditch the F-35 and go for a plane from a country that won't sell us an overpriced piece of junk. It might even had had the effect of waking them up, but that didn't happen with India. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:The US refused to sell the F-22 to Australia, India and Japan. I don't understand why we didn't ditch the F-35 and go for a plane from a country that won't sell us an overpriced piece of junk. It might even had had the effect of waking them up, but that didn't happen with India. lol if you think Australia will buy fighters from anyone other than the U.S. in the current geopolitical environment. There are rather valid international politics reasons why a U.S. fighter is really the only choice for the RAAF. Also double lol if you seriously believe the F-35 is truly a "piece of junk" compared to something like the Eurofighter or Rafale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Also double lol if you seriously believe the F-35 is truly a "piece of junk" compared to something like the Eurofighter or Rafale. How many combat sorties has the f-35 been on? They could also buy F-15s or F-16s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Speaking of the F-35, I'm just going to leave this here http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-pentagons-new-trillion-dollar-jet-is-a-garbage-can
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
The F-35
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Speaking of the F-35, I'm just going to leave this here  You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Giving Lockheed a blank check is like giving a heroin addict your debit card.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:How many combat sorties has the f-35 been on? I didn't say there weren't other US options than the F-35, just that there's a tendency for goons to engage in hyperbole (shocking) and act like the F-35 is going to literally fall out of the sky every time it flies. Personally I'd argue that the Aussies would be well served by a F-15E variant (longer legs and a larger loadout for Also the "combat sorties" argument is a crock of poo poo and intellectually lazy (especially when we're talking about the Rafale and Eurofighter where "combat sorties" means "blew up trucks in a completely permissive environment.") The Raptor hasn't been flown in combat either, but you're a loving idiot if you think it is useless or a piece of junk. Kilonum posted:Speaking of the F-35, I'm just going to leave this here Congrats on posting a 14 month old article I guess? A Melted Tarp posted:Giving Lockheed a blank check is like giving a heroin addict your debit card. Lockheed didn't write the specs, the government did. Lockheed didn't dream up a joint fighter to meet three services' disparate requirements, the government did. Lockheed didn't fail to learn the lessons of the F-111, the government did. Look, I hate the F-35 as much as anyone and LockMart are still a bunch of criminals, but the groupthink of "lol the F-35 is completely worthless and LockMart is bilking the taxpayer for all their worth by the way the government is completely blameless" is getting a little old. I mean, y'all are putting me in the position where I am actually sort of defending LockMart and the F-35 program...think about that for a second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
The F-22 hasn't fired anything in anger (at least publicly) but it has intercepted Russian bombers and Iranian fighters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
I might not much care for them (I like Gripens the best of the Eurocanard family), but what are the big issues with the Typhoon and Rafale?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:I might not much care for them (I like Gripens the best of the Eurocanard family), but what are the big issues with the Typhoon and Rafale? They're not American 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The F-22 hasn't fired anything in anger (at least publicly) but it has intercepted Russian bombers and Iranian fighters. And the F-35 has yet to declare IOC so it isn't yet flying operationally...so I don't understand your point. If you want to play the "well but it's been in development since 1992 and hasn't done anything worthwhile" card, both the Rafale and Eurofighter started development in the mid-'70s (maybe 1979 if you want to use the start of the ECA program as your benchmark.) So for both aircraft it took right around 30 years from initial development before they were used in combat. Both programs faced massive development delays and plenty of buffoonery. Davin Valkri posted:I might not much care for them (I like Gripens the best of the Eurocanard family), but what are the big issues with the Typhoon and Rafale? Both are extremely expensive for the capability they bring. Both are maintenance pigs. The Typhoon took spiral development to a whole new level where they just left off the majority of the air to ground capability on the initial tranches of planes on a program that was billed as a "multi-role" fighter from the start of its development (as opposed to say, the Raptor where air to ground capability only got added on after the program was well into development.) That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I can think of some more later. Granted, many of these issues are attributable to government decisions as opposed to the manufacturer or the aircraft itself, but since we're slagging the F-35 with problems related to government decisions I figured that was only fair. Again, I can't emphasize this enough, I think the F-35 was an extremely stupid program and putting all the eggs in the F-35 basket has severely hazarded the future of U.S. tactical aviation. I think my posting history on this subject backs that statement up. Yet the views expressed here are putting me in a position where I feel compelled to halfway defend the F-35...that says something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Lockheed didn't write the specs, the government did. Lockheed didn't dream up a joint fighter to meet three services' disparate requirements, the government did. There's no way the government didn't have someone from LockMart whispering in their ear the whole time they were writing the specs. If they didn't, LockMart's loving incompetent. Governments don't exist in a vacuum; everything they produce is influenced by stakeholder advocacy. When you're talking defence procurement, those stakeholders happen to be defence contractors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:The F-35
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Just do like I do and blame all things bad about the F-35 on the
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
1950s Life: Military not giving up on the whole 'atomic airplane' idea You have to admire their perseverance, I suppose.  The main debate among the brains of the time was "should we modify an existing airframe or design a new one?" The main concern was of course a atomic plane gap with the Soviets.  This concept is interesting, though like the last atomic atomic bomber we've seen, it places special emphasis on putting the crew far away from the reactor, which tells me even 1950s engineers were not so confidant about the the whole 'lightweight radiation shield' problem.  The atomic powered early warning aircraft makes sense, assuming you could build it big enough so that the crew isn't forced to live in Type VII U-boat squalor in a tiny shielded compartment at the front for weeks at a time. I'm not seeing the advantages of a nuclear powered B-57, though :/  Launching ICBMs from a nuclear powered airplane is, ah, interesting. You guys have been talking about servicing the past few pages - imagine the service bulletins that thing would generate. It has *twin* reactors, and carries something like 2 Titan IIs fueled on its wings, in the upper atmosphere, during all weathers. The "low level supersonic ramjet bomber" is probably actually less problematic from a maintenance standpoint, since I think Ramjets don't need moving parts. I also can't imagine it'd be more dangerous to its crews than the B-58. Then again, the accidents would probably be memorable in a way that a supersonic bomber merely exploding and crashing with a thermonuclear bomb on board positively dull.  Given how the 1950s rolled with Health and Safety, I think we should be glad it never happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
FrozenVent posted:There's no way the government didn't have someone from LockMart whispering in their ear the whole time they were writing the specs. If they didn't, LockMart's loving incompetent. Considering the idea for a multi-role fighter that could meet all three services' requirements as well as the (initial) requirements were written well before LockMart even existed as a company and a solid decade before they won the contract, I'd find the idea that LockMart is singlehandedly responsible for the overall JSF concept pretty hard to believe. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Just do like I do and blame all things bad about the F-35 on the Also that. LockMart spent a shitload of money on the SWAT effort, money that I'm sure they would've rather pocketed, and it was all due to the -B and the requirement from 8th and I that the Navy's army's air force have a stealth fighter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:58
|
|